My Theory Regarding "Genesis 1" vs "Big Bang&

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

Wolfbitn
Banned
Banned
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:26 pm

My Theory Regarding "Genesis 1" vs "Big Bang&

Post #1

Post by Wolfbitn »

I would like to welcome everyone to this debate between myself and Divine Insight. We may actually have 2 debates going on simultaneously if Nick is still wanting to participate.

This One on One, Head to Head debate is based upon the thread "Is Genesis 1 More Accurate than Big Bang Cosmology?" This is located in the science and religion forum.

The title of that thread was a bit misleading, but Haven, in all fairness had no idea where I was going to take the debate when he named it. It was certainly not intentional on his part but based on my statement: "I can demonstrate that Genesis 1 IS more scientifically valid and better tested than string theory/Big Bang in regards to it's relation to my theory."

In THIS thread this is what will be examined.


I would like to introduce also and thank Divine Insight, my opponent, for accepting the challenge, and To you Divine, I wish you sincerely the very best of luck, and I thank you sincerely for accepting it. But don't expect this to be a cakewalk. I am going to challenge you, hold you to standards, and make you present actual findings on the reported results on these tests that claim to verify BB prediction.

At any rate, good luck.


To everyone again...

The first thing everyone found in that original debate, was that I am not Ken Ham nor do I believe as he does. As is so very common in Christianity and Judaism we have MANY sects among us, each one choosing to believe scripture usually according to various more popular belief systems. For instance, As you know you have Young Earth Creationists, and you have OLD Earth Creationists. I am obviously an old earth creationist. Ken Hams are a minority within the church.

The OEC stance is (among those who actually study the issue in the church... too many do not study it at all) the most popular stance in Christianity today easily, as nearly everyone I know is OEC as opposed to YEC, if they even have a stance. In the OEC belief it is widely held that the days of creation equal ages, which is backed by the fact that the word translated day is also just as properly translated as age. These ages represent very long time periods. The most extensive time period most likely between the Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:2. We propose a wide gap of time between the 2 verses hence the name of this thought is "Gap Theory". So between verse 1, When God creates the heavens and earth, and verse 2, we are talking an extremely long and yet undetermined about of time.

I believe that nearly every Christian here would agree with me that if there was one unfortunate fact today within the church, it would be that many many people in the church, are only vaguely aware of what scripture teaches in nearly any subject area. They cant even agree on salvation issues. In my opinion this is one reason why the church is presently in such a mess. The church itself needs educated in its own book. For these reasons I believe men like Ken Ham can even hope to hold any esteem at all in the church, and my personal feeling is that he has done more to make the church look idiotic than anything else. He is a VAST minority among those in the church who actually study the theology back to early sources, and who are also any kind of science buff. What WE see is that what we find in scripture and what we find written in unchanging stone record, they are an AMAZINGLY similar account. Neither record cancels out the other at any point. They ALL agree.

I am here to give you something else. A REAL debate as to what we find in both Genesis 1 AND current studies regarding the BB.

My THEORY regarding Genesis 1 is this:


To put this in the simplest form, after Genesis 1:1, We have before us, from verse 2 and to the end of the chapter, an "Extinction Event", and then the subsequent healing of the earth and the renewal of life.

Cycles of life and extinction are in fact verified in scripture, just as they are verified in stone. We see it here in Genesis 1, Jeremiah 4, Ecclesiastes, Revelation, and certainly implications are made elsewhere.

Ecclesiastes 1
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new�?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them.


Revelation ends with the destruction of this current civilization and then the subsequent healing of the earth, just as it began in Genesis 1:

Rev. 16
3 The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead person, and every living thing in the sea died.

4 The third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. 5 Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say:

“You are just in these judgments, O Holy One,
you who are and who were;
6 for they have shed the blood of your holy people and your prophets,
and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve.�
7 And I heard the altar respond:

“Yes, Lord God Almighty,
true and just are your judgments.�
8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire. 9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

10 The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in agony 11 and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done.

12 The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East. 13 Then I saw three impure spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 They are demonic spirits that perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.

15 “Look, I come like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake and remains clothed, so as not to go naked and be shamefully exposed.�

16 Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.

17 The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and out of the temple came a loud voice from the throne, saying, “It is done!� 18 Then there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since mankind has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake. 19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed... 20 Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found. 21 From the sky huge hailstones, each weighing about a hundred pounds,[a] fell on people. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible.

Rev. 21:1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,�[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.


Elsewhere we are shown the killing of of grasses and herbs and trees apparently during the events unfolding above...

Today, many many many people in the OEC movement believe this very thing. This belief can be easily traced back over 2000 years, and we believe it is the original intent in the earliest manuscripts. I am in very good company with SO many PHD's in various fields related to the subject, and it seems the more learned they are in the subject, both Theologically and scientifically, the more apt they are to believe this. We believe that even before the first age, Genesis 1 indicates that, "In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth", but then goes on to indicate in the Hebrew that the earth then became laid waste and emptied.. The Hebrew wording can certainly literally and specifically be interpreted in this manner. We believe that when though, it states He created the heavenS...PLURAL... He is speaking of the heavens thin the same respect as when He speaks of the heavenS later as being inhabited with planets and stars. The heavenS as it states in the Hebrew AND the translations, are created on the first day.

Genesis is one of the most poetic books in all of scripture and is valued as extremely sacred by more than one religion. I suggest that this is for good reason. It actually shows extinction, and then the restoration of the earth... it shows both EVOLUTION and special creation.

THESE are the things I too will demonstrate..

If this theory is to be tested, then MUCH of the testing of this theory has already been done for the last hundred years or more... through geology, archeology, as well as the fossil record. All we need do to test this theory is to compare it to all these records that have literally been written in stone and CANNOT be changed. We will test the theory against these findings right here in this thread.



Now regarding the Big Bang. I think it has been made pretty clear that the Big Bang is an unfinished equation as my esteemed debating friend (In another thread) Haven has pointed out. An unfinished product is useless if it ultimately CANNOT be justified mathematically... ONLY predictions can be tested in this case. Certainly the Big Bang is an interesting thought. The fact that we simply cannot finish the math has been admitted by greats like Hawking and Guth.
I frankly and personally believe the entire thing is possible. God DOES state so poetically that He flung out the stars with His hand. But at thw same time the Big Bang has major issues. I frankly also believe MY theory has been tested in more ways and a hundred thousand times more times than the Big Bang (Likely not even a slight exaggeration). I believe my theory is more easily tested than the Big Bang. I believe some of the testing addressing the predictions of the BB, have been fudged. I therefore only regard it as a hypothesis, and I had prior agreement on this point by someone here not of my belief system.

So the debate...

1) WHICH of the 2 have been most tested?
2) Which of the 2 fared better in their respective tests?
3) Which is the BEST overall theory?


Of course I take the side and make the claim that the facts of my theory are better researched and tested and verified than the so called theory of the Big Bang. I believe I can demonstrate that my theory fares FAR better in positive verifiable results when tested. When compared to the testing and results regarding BB, the BB pales. And of course, I believe my theory hands down to be the superior theory between the 2. So we are comparing how each of the 2 theories stand stand when exposed to full light, and which of the 2 theories prove to be the most tested, the most verified, and therefore the most credible.


THIS is the debate.


The Rules:
1) Peer-reviewed sources only.
2) Theological sources old and new can be used, recognizing that just as in science, theologians disagree.
3) No empty, unsupported claims may be made; back up all positive statements with evidence.
4) Direct questions MUST be answered in an intelligent way, with supporting evidence, or a simple "I dont know" will work.
5) Misrepresenting another debater is a disqualifying factor. Ask questions if you are unsure about what they are saying.


15 posts each, with each player posting in turn, and then 2 closing posts, wherein no new arguments may be introduced... only summaries and conclusions regarding the evidences brought forth by both debaters. These summaries may be referenced.


Now regarding the Big Bang, I would like for my opponent Divine, to provide 4 things within Divine's first 4 posts, Beginning with the opening post... one at a time after this in the next successive 3 posts is fine if you find so much information it takes a while to tackle a subject:



And at this point I will invoke rule 4, and bring it into play. Divine, I do not want a blanket statement that BB has been tested, I am challenging you to prove to what extent it has been tested... I am asking you Directly to provide the following:


1) I want the mathematical equation for the big bang, which leads us back to the moment of the event. If this cannot be provided I would like Divine's concession that this finished equation simply does not exist. Does such a thing exist? According to all of our more credible scientists, like Guth and Hawking, no this formula does not exist.


2) My esteemed adversary here will claim that a number of predictions have been tested that verify the BB. I want my opponent to provide a list of all of the predictions that have been made in regards to the BBT. The more prediction you can provide the better your argument. Without these predictions you are left with very little, because predictions have been the ONLY tests performed in regards to the BB. Peer reviewed sources please. How many predictions can you dig up? How many of them were even credible?


3) I expect my opponent to provide a list of tests that have actually been performed in an attempt to verify these predictions that were made regarding the BB. I would like with this a conclusion giving the percentage of resemblance between the predicted model and the actual end results of these tests. In other words, the results were within what percentage point of the predicted model? Do you have any that rise to a 10 percent match even after adjusting the parameters?


4) I challenge my opponent to list the parameters of these tests which were adjustable, and tell us after the adjustments were made, did the adjusted parameters themselves resemble ANY current observations. Were the original parameters representative of what was observed or the adjusted?



***** AND really a 5th... It goes without saying that we should both give a very short and simple laymens description of the big bang and relativity. I will serve mine first with a twist of lemon if you dont mind.


The Big Bang and Relativity.

To put this as absolutely as simply as possible, and in laymens terms, IF space is relative to time, is time relative to density? And If time is relative to space, is space relative to density?


Consider the theory of the BB. Observe expansion. Observe time. Observe density.


We hypothesize that there was once a pinpoint or a basketball or baseball or beach-ball or marble sized mass of energy/matter. We hypothesize that suddenly for some unknown reason, This point of singularity experienced a nearly unimaginably massive and sudden expansion that THRUST its entire mass, along with SPACE itself, outward. The universe expanded WITH time. We further speculate that at this moment of the singularity's sudden expansion, time became relative to space.

I would like to further speculate that time and space are also relative to density..


Consider our earth and everything on it and within it. imagine yourself on this earth looking outward. Lets say an event takes place that in some weird distorted way, distorts all known laws and shrinks the entire universe back again, to the size of this marble or basketball. A reverse big bang, a big crunch...to the size now of a marble. If it were to then suddenly expand, then the time that this expansion occurred could be observed, and the time it took to expand to any given point could be measured, relative to the observer. Whether in a more compacted state than today, or an even more expanded state, time is still relative to space and therefore it is also relative to density because the further space continues to expand, the less dense it becomes. And since space is relative to density, and we know that time is relative to space, time is also relative to density. Think of the density of a balloon. The more it expands the less dense the skin becomes until it POPs!!! Expansion spreads the density thinner throughout the universe. Of course a reversal would cause density to become greater as space became more condensed.

But... The same can be said for gravity... and possibly even magnetic fields. All of these things seem to be relative to the other. But what is the significance of this in arriving to the conclusion to the BB theory? Science has a huge problem in explaining how relativity is working within a singularity before the actual event.

But If space were to expand or contract infinitely, would time ever reach "an end" to either extreme, or does infinite lesser density relate to infinitely faster time and infinitely greater density relate to infinitely slower time? I bet on relativity.


This being said, VERY simply put it is hypothesized that this universe began as a point of singularity that suddenly expanded and continues to expand to this day. It is proposed that the initial expansion was phenomenal in its scope of acceleration and brute force.... this is the BB.

I would finish this by asking, who is to say that we aren't someone else's observable marble? What happened to cause this singularity to suddenly do ANYTHING? Does Genesis 1 explain events occurring on this earth AFTER the creation of all that is?



I look forward to a great debate, and I would like to see this addressed in a coherent condensed manner if possible, and I hope I can do the same for you.

Very good luck to you

and Thank you


.
"I never said it would be easy Neo, I just said it would be the truth."
Morpheous

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: My Theory Regarding "Genesis 1" vs "Big B

Post #2

Post by Divine Insight »

Hello everyone, I too welcome everyone to observe this debate. I strongly encourage it. It will be a relatively short debate if possible. And after the debate is over there will be a voting thread in General Discussion where the observers can vote for who they believe has won the debate or whether it was indecisive.

I would also like to extend a warm welcome to my opponent Wolfbitn. I am very excited about this debate because it is rare to find people who are willing to debate me head-to-head so this is a rare event to be sure. I wish Wolfbitn the best of luck.

~~~~

To the General Audience and Observers:

At this point I already feel that an apology is in order to the general audience. Wolfbitn was supposed to simply post his case and a summary of the debate format in his opening post. But instead he appears to have gone overboard and has already begun to argue his case. He has already demanded that I address questions and issues that he has aimed toward me. This has left me in a somewhat bad position because I was hoping to keep my opening post very brief before actually entering into any arguments or demands that I should need to answer questions already.

I would also like to point out to the general audience that it is Wolfbitn who claims to have a "scientific Theory" of Genesis 1. And therefore he is the one who is making a claim. I have not made any claims about anything yet, and therefore it is actually improper and premature for him to be bombarding me with questions that have not yet been established to be relevant to our debate. Because of this I am going to break this post into two sections. The first section being the original succinct opening that I had originally planned to present, and the second section being a response to the totally superfluous questions and demands of my debate partner.

So I apologize to the general audience for this inconvenience and unnecessary clutter.

Also, just as a comment to the public, Wolfbitn and I have decided to limit this debate to these two opening posts, then 15 posts of debate each after that, followed by 2 closing arguments from each of us in turn. That will be a total of 36 posts altogether. I have offered to keep track of the post count in a table at the end of each of my posts. So you will see that table at the bottom of every post I make.

Thank you for reading and following this debate. And I hope you will join in the voting process when this debate is over.

~~~~



My Original Intended Opening Post:


Wolfbitn's main claim is that he has a "scientific theory" of Genesis 1 that he would like to compare with other scientific theories, namely the Big Bang Theory.

My position is quite simple. I hold the position that he has no such scientific theory, nor does such a scientific theory even exist.

In Woflbitn's Opening Post he states:
Wolfbitn wrote: My THEORY regarding Genesis 1 is this:
He then goes on to offer a list of 20 opinionated theological speculations concerning Biblical mythology.

I do not see where this constitutes a "scientific theory" of Genesis 1. There is nothing scientific about opinionated theological speculations about ancient fables.

Moreover, Wolfbitn himself had demanded the following rules for this debate. These are his rules, I accepted to abide by these rules as well:
Wolfbitn wrote: The Rules:
1) Peer-reviewed sources only.
2) Theological sources old and new can be used, recognizing that just as in science, theologians disagree.
3) No empty, unsupported claims may be made; back up all positive statements with evidence.
4) Direct questions MUST be answered in an intelligent way, with supporting evidence, or a simple "I dont know" will work.
5) Misrepresenting another debater is a disqualifying factor. Ask questions if you are unsure about what they are saying.
Notice that Rule #1 clearly states that only peer-reviewed sources are permitted.

Moreover, it's impossible to even claim to have a "scientific theory" about anything unless he has a theory that has indeed been peer-reviewed by the scientific community.

Therefore, at this point of the debate (my very first post), I must demand of Wolfbitn that he actually produce his supposed "scientific theory" of Genesis 1. Otherwise the debate is already over, because this debate is supposed to be about comparing these scientific theories.

If he doesn't have a valid scientific theory then there is nothing here to debate.

So far all he has done is claim to have a THEORY (the all caps was his) and then he simply offered a list of 20 opionated theological speculations about unreliable ancient mythology.

That does not consitute a "scientific theory".

So I pass the demands back to him. I demand that Wolfbitn actually produce this scientific theory that he claims to have. In order to do that he most certainly needs to provide a link to where his scientific theory has been published in a scientific journal and peer-reviewed by scientists.

Otherwise he not only has nothing to debate, but he's even in violation of his own Rule #1.

This concludes my originality intended opening post.

~~~~~~~~

Spectators and Observers Please Read

Everything below the following line is totally superfluous, I shouldn't even need to address any of the following demands of Wolfbitn. However, just to avoid being accused of evading his questions and breaking his rule #4, I will address his demands as briefly as I possibly can. Just as a gesture of honoring his rules and for completeness.

~~~~~~~~


=============================================

My responses to the premature and superfluous demands of Wolfbitn follow:

On The Big Bang Theory
Wolfbitn wrote: Now regarding the Big Bang, I would like for my opponent Divine, to provide 4 things within Divine's first 4 posts, Beginning with the opening post... one at a time after this in the next successive 3 posts is fine if you find so much information it takes a while to tackle a subject:

And at this point I will invoke rule 4, and bring it into play. Divine, I do not want a blanket statement that BB has been tested, I am challenging you to prove to what extent it has been tested... I am asking you Directly to provide the following:


1) I want the mathematical equation for the big bang, which leads us back to the moment of the event. If this cannot be provided I would like Divine's concession that this finished equation simply does not exist. Does such a thing exist? According to all of our more credible scientists, like Guth and Hawking, no this formula does not exist.


2) My esteemed adversary here will claim that a number of predictions have been tested that verify the BB. I want my opponent to provide a list of all of the predictions that have been made in regards to the BBT. The more prediction you can provide the better your argument. Without these predictions you are left with very little, because predictions have been the ONLY tests performed in regards to the BB. Peer reviewed sources please. How many predictions can you dig up? How many of them were even credible?


3) I expect my opponent to provide a list of tests that have actually been performed in an attempt to verify these predictions that were made regarding the BB. I would like with this a conclusion giving the percentage of resemblance between the predicted model and the actual end results of these tests. In other words, the results were within what percentage point of the predicted model? Do you have any that rise to a 10 percent match even after adjusting the parameters?


4) I challenge my opponent to list the parameters of these tests which were adjustable, and tell us after the adjustments were made, did the adjusted parameters themselves resemble ANY current observations. Were the original parameters representative of what was observed or the adjusted?
To all of the above I say baloney.

Wolfbitn has not even yet provided a scientific theory of Genesis 1 to compare with The Big Bang Theory and thus all of this is both premature, and irrelevant at this point in time. And therefore I suggest that I am in no way in violation of his Rule #4 to refuse to clutter up this debate by answering his unwarranted demands.

Moreover, he states the following (quoted from his above quote)
Wolfbitn wrote: Divine, I do not want a blanket statement that BB has been tested, I am challenging you to prove to what extent it has been tested... I am asking you Directly to provide the following:
Why should I need to re-address and teach a well-excepted and peer-reviewed scientific theory in this thread when that information is well available in college textbooks and scientific journals across the world? :-k

I proclaim that this is a totally unreasonable demand on the part of Wolfbitn, and that to ask me to teach a course on advanced physics in this thread to a layman who is in denial is absolutely unrealistic.

Even if Wolfbitn was a serious physics student who was sincerely motivated to understand these theories it could still take many classroom hours to teach him what he needs to know to understand them.

So his "demand" here is utterly absurd. And I flatly refuse to be held hostage to this kind of absurdity by his claim to Rule #4. On the contrary, he did not even bring with him a genuine scientific theory to compare with the Big Bang Theory anyway, so this is all premature and irrelevant.

He must produce his "scientific theory" of Genesis 1 before he has the right to even question the validity of other scientific theories. This is NOT a debate about whether Big Bang Theory is legit.

This is supposed to be a debate about comparing a scientific theory that Wolfbitn claims to have but has not yet produced, to Big Bang Theory.

So I totally reject his demands that I must justify Big Bang Theory in this thread.

Moreover, he has already conceded that Big Bang Theory is indeed a scientific theory. So it's already been well-tested and peer-reviewed. This is required of scientific theories. Asking me to personally rehash decades of well-established science is simply unreasonable.

I also address this again, by responding to Wolfbitn's second unrealistic demand below:
Wolfbitn wrote: ***** AND really a 5th... It goes without saying that we should both give a very short and simple laymens description of the big bang and relativity. I will serve mine first with a twist of lemon if you dont mind.
I have no clue why Woflbitn thinks this should go without saying. He hasn't even established what his opinionated theological speculation has to do with either Big Bang Theory or Relativity. So why does it go without saying that these things should even be addressed?

I think he should at least establish why he feels there is even a conflict between these scientific theories and his opinionated theological speculations first.

In any case, just for the sake of completeness I would be more than happy to offer some comments about these theories on a layman level. So here we go:

I would first like to point out the very term "Big Bang" has many different meanings, and I would like to try to clear up at least three of those meanings right now.

The Big Bang Revisited:

The Big Bang as an actual event:

It is certainly possible to speak of the "Big Bang Event" in an effort to try to describe the very moment that our universe actually began. Currently there does not exist any theory concerning the actual Big Bang Event. There are speculations concerning what might have given rise to such an event. My favorite speculation is the idea that it may have begun as a quantum fluctuation. This speculation can actually be supported by the mathematics of the theory of Quantum Mechanics but it is not possible to show in detail that this was necessarily the cause of the Big Bang Event or precisely how it may have unfolded in the extreme early stages.

There are many other speculations concerning what might have caused the Big Bang Event, these range from "branes" colliding in M-theory, to singularities giving rise to the universe through Loop Quantum Gravity, to even other ideas.

The Big Bang Event is NOT a theory. It's just a name given to an event that we believe must have occurred because of Big Bang Theory (see next topic)

The Big Bang Theory:

The Big Bang Theory doesn't start with the Big Bang Event. On the contrary, the Big Bang Theory is the theory that has predicted that there must have been a Big Bang Event at one time. The Big Bang Theory actually began with the observations of an astronomer named Edwin Hubble who recognized and measured that our universe is currently expanding.

From this observation it was quickly realized that the universe must have been smaller in the past and that things must have been closer together in the past. Further observations confirmed that this is indeed the truth of reality. When we look out into the universe we are also looking back in time and the predictions of Hubble's "Big Bang Theory" were confirmed precisely. The universe was indeed smaller and galaxies were closer together in the past.

The ultimate conclusion of the Big Bang Theory is that there must have been a Big Bang Event at some point in the past. Further observations and data was collected and this was also found to be the truth of reality.

So the Big Bang Theory has been confirmed to be true up to and very close to the actual Big Bang Event. But of course, it hasn't been confirmed all the way to a singularity, or quantum fluctuation erupting. So the conclusion of the Big Bang Theory has not yet been confirmed. It may not have actually been a singularity. There could be some other explanation. But that clearly would not make the Big Bang Theory wrong anyway. The Big Bang Theory is not dependent upon there having been a Big Bang Event in the sense of the universe beginning from an absolute singularity.

So Wolfbitn's idea that Big Bang Theory is invalid if a Big Bang Event cannot be shown to have actually occurred is totally wrong anyway. The Big Bang Theory is not dependent upon an actual Big Bang Event having started from a singularity.

That is actually a layman's misunderstanding of Big Bang Theory and Wolfbitn is making this layman mistake.

Big Bang Cosmology:

Big Bang Cosmology is the study of neculosynthesis during the early stages of the development of the universe. Like Big Bang Theory, Big Bang Cosmology also does not depend upon there having actually been a Big Bang Event in terms of the universe having supposedly starting from a singularity.

In Summary of Big Bang:

Neither Big Bang Theory, nor Big Bang Cosmology are dependent upon being able to understand, describe, or prove that there was an actual Big Bang Event that began from a singularity.

So Wolfbitn is making a grave layman's mistake to even think that way, yet this is his main objection to the Big Bang Theory.

My Thoughts on Relativity

Again, I don't see where this has anything at all to do with our current debate. So I'm going to make this extremely brief.

Special Relativity is a theory created by Albert Einstein. It predicts that time and distance will dilate with motion, among other things. And that mass and energy are interchangeable via the famous mathematical relationship of E=MC². It also predicts that the speed of light will always be constant for all observers, and that no massive object can travel faster than the speed of light.

All of those predictions have been well-confirmed not only in the lab, but we use these facts of nature in almost all our current modern technologies as well. So the Theory of Special Relativity may as well be called the Law of Special Relativity.

If Wolfbitn wants to question the validity of Special Relativity he's not even worth debating.

General Relativity is an extension of Special Relativity. Einstein also discovered that the relationship between time dilation and length contraction shows that our universe is actually made of a "fabric of spacetime". And with that realization he was able to explain how gravity actually works because of the warping of this fabric of reality.

Again, this has all been thoroughly tested and proven to be true. So I don't even understand why Wolfbitn is even bringing these things up. What do these things have to do with this debate? :-k

=========================================

Finally Post Summary

Again, my apologies to everyone for the unnecessary side-tracks demanded by Wolfbitn.

I had hoped to keep my posts short and clean without all these unnecessary distractions.

In closing of this post I would just like to remind Wolfbitn that the only thing I am demanding from his is that he actually provide a scientific theory of Genesis 1 to debate. Thus far all he has provided is a list of opinionated theological speculation that itself has not even been published or peer-reviewed.

So he is currently in violation of his own Rule #1. And he has not yet even provided any scientific theory of Genesis to even debate.

So this the only thing that I request of him in his next post.

Thank you all for reading, and again, my apologies for all the extra unnecessary stuff that Wolfbitn had unjustly demanded.

I expect to see him actually post his scientific theory in his next post so we can actually begin our debate.

[mrow]Post Counter[mcol]Allotted[mcol]Current [row]Wolfbit'n Opening[col]1[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]D. I. Opening[col]1[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]Wolfbit'n Debate[col]15[col] [row]D. I. Debate[col]15[col] [row]Wolfbit'n Closing[col]2[col] [row]D. I. Closing[col]2[col]
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Wolfbitn
Banned
Banned
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:26 pm

Post #3

Post by Wolfbitn »

I find it ironic that Divine says I didnt state what My theory concerns... It seemed very apparent to me that everyone was informed that my theory is that Genesis 1 described an extinction event and the subsequent healing of the planet. Did I not state this, or did he somehow miss it?

O... well it looks like I did state my theory... and yes in the first post... and yes again when we were making arrangements to have this debate in more than 2 threads lol.

From post 1 of this debate:
My THEORY regarding Genesis 1 is this:

To put this in the simplest form, after Genesis 1:1, We have before us, from verse 2 and to the end of the chapter, an "Extinction Event", and then the subsequent healing of the earth and the renewal of life.

Today, many many many people in the OEC movement believe this very thing. This belief can be easily traced back over 2000 years, and we believe it is the original intent in the earliest manuscripts.
Sorry if you somehow didnt read that Divine

For my 2nd post I will make a few observations, and then go on to Genesis.

I have to say, I expected A LOT more of a beginning from my esteemed (i thought) opponant. It looks more like a cop out than anything addressing anything, and a less than esteemable post (and this is generous). Lots of scholarly work there... not. I was fascinated with all the evidence laid out... not.

I set forth the hypothesis at the very beginning that Genesis 1 represents an extinction event, and went on to say this would go from hypothesis to theory through testing.

Why one would imagine that they cant take recorded statements and compare them to known fact to verify their veracity, I dont know.



He states, and again I find this disappointing FOR HIM given his position in this debate lol :
The Big Bang Event is NOT a theory. It's just a name given to an event that we believe must have occurred because of Big Bang Theory (see next topic)

The Big Bang Theory:

The Big Bang Theory doesn't start with the Big Bang Event.

I am EXTREMELY disappointed that he actually states this because I now win by default. I mean the debate IS which is the best theory... mine is the only one on the table now.


He admits he doesnt have an actual theory to lay on the table, so I am therefore the only man in this debate with an actual theory on the table... Namely theorizing that Genesis 1 is describing an actual extinction event.


Bus regardless of his whipping of a dead horse for the rest of this debate, I will present the rest of my evidence through the subsequent pages.

Notice he states that the big bang theory cant even start at the event... NOTE TOO that he would not concede the first point, that it is indeed an UNFINISHED hypothesis. Yet he conceded that it is actually not even a theory... Thank you Divine. Point match game.

I am also very disappointed that regarding the 4 direct questions asked of him for his evidence he says
To all of the above I say baloney.
Im not sorry for my sake but for the readers sake and for his, because without this he has nothing. He will tell you BB has been tested, and yet he cannot provide these tests nor can he speak of them with any authority. He cannot tell you how many tests have been performed, he cannot tell you what predictions were made, he cannot tell you with what percentage the tests verified the predicted model. So what does he know about the big bang? "It isnt a theory".


So... so far:

1) He has not demonstrated any mathematical equation to show us the event to now. Because it doesnt exist.

2) He has not mentiioned a single prediction made regarding the BB

3) He has not been able to provide a single test on the predictions.

4) We have to assume then he knows nothing about the changing parameters of some of these tests, and how they resembled no observation made after being adjusted.

5) He admits in his very first post that the BB is not even a proper theory.


6) And then he states we cannot compare Genesis 1 to scientific findings in the geological and fossil records. I had REALLY hoped better for every reader here, am very sorry but maybe we can pick this up some...


I have to ask... just WHY ARE you here then? I expect you to produce the requested evidence or you have nothing to produce whatsoever, because PREDICTION is the only thing that has ever been tested in regard to what you already agree is not a theory... that was easy.


Of course my distinguished opponent for some reason seems to believe one cannot "hypothesize" that Genesis 1 is describing an extinction event, and then test it against known scientific research and actual fossil findings and verify this hypothesis into a theory... but this is exactly what we are going to do.

Genesis 1
King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Now first of all pleaase note that in Genesis 1:1 GOD has created the heavenS... plural. This is the same in nearly every translation.

American Standard Version, Darby Bible, English Standard Version, Holman Christian Standard Bible, and New Living Translation: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Concordant Version: "Created by the Elohim were the heavens and the earth."

The Living Bible: "When God began creating the heavens and the earth..."

New American Bible: "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth ..."

New Revised Standard Version: "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth."

New World Translation: "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

World English Bible "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."


Now when we refer to the word "heavenS" in common everyday usage, are you actually implying it does NOT refer to a universe inhabited by planets and stars? Of course not. Heavens is PLURAL and for millenia has describes space and the stars, all the heavenly bodies included.


Therefore, we must realize that Genesis will be poetically speaking of a universe INHABITED with stars and planets. We are being given right here in this first verse, the foundation to lay the rest of the chapter on... We have before us a universe as we know it.

Now in verse 2, we have before us what seems very hard to understand, a very vague translation, where it says the earth was "without form and void"... but this can be translated from the hebrew VERY LITERALLY as

"And the earth BECAME LAID WASTE and EMPTIED".

This is no stretch of the imagination whatsoever. This is a well documented understanding of the Hebrew that not just makes sense today, but it has a documented history of 2000 years. I can present MANY men with PHD's today who believe as I do and agree with this translation, but we can follow it back through time.


http://ucg-canada.org/booklets/BT/versesofgenesis.asp
: Some scholars also argue against translating hayah "became" instead of "was" in Genesis 1:2 because they assume this interpretation came about only recently, after scientists determined the earth to be very old. Thus they consider this explanation a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with modern geology. The explanation that there existed an indefinite period between the initial beautiful creation described in Genesis 1:1 and the earth becoming waste and void in verse 2 has been called, sometimes disparagingly, "the gap theory." The idea was attributed to Thomas Chalmers in the 19th century and to Cyrus Scofield in the 20th.

Yet this interpretation that the earth "became" waste and void has been discussed for close to 2,000 years, as pointed out by the late Arthur Custance in his book Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2.

The earliest known recorded controversy on this point can be attributed to Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century. The Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament, rendered Genesis 1:2 with an Aramaic expression Dr. Custance translates as "and the earth was laid waste" (1988, p. 15). The original language evidently led them to understand that something had occurred which had "laid waste" the earth, and they interpreted this as a destruction.

The early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254), in his commentary De Principiis, explains regarding Genesis 1:2 that the original earth had been "cast downwards" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1917, p. 342).

In the Middle Ages the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (1097-1141) wrote about Genesis 1:2, "Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this, 'how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering...of it was taken in hand?' (De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, Book 1, part 1, chapter 6). Other medieval scholars, such as Dionysius Peavius and Pererius, also considered that there was an interval of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, the Dutch scholar Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) taught that the earth had originally been created before the six days of creation described in Genesis (1952, Vol. 3, p. 302). This was roughly 200 years before geology embraced an ancient origin for the earth.

These numerous examples show us that the idea of an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 has a long history. Any claim that it is of only recent origin—that it was invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geology—is groundless.


Now in verse 2 we see the following Hebrew meanings regarding key words (from a past post):
Was = Hayah

Become, come to pass, happen.

without form = Tohuw
The idea of being "devoid of life"... empty..

void = Bohuw
Desolate
It is used in the following way:
Jeremiah 4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.


You may verify this here http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/gen1.pdf
...but most every Hebrew lexicon yields the same results.

This completely changes the way Genesis 1 should be understood. Not only does the Hebrew bear witness to an earth experiencing cycles of life and extinction, as youll see in a moment, It is verified in Ecclesiastes, Revelation, Jeremiah and elsewhere.

With this newer understanding of the Hebrew and scripture elsewhere we now have the following picture:

1) After the earth's creation it BECAME desolate and devoid of life. Meaning that it HAD to have had life flourishing before this point. It cannot BECOME desolate if it is ALREADY desolate. So it states :
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth BECAME desolate and devoid of life. And God said "let there be light", and there was light.

So we see the verbiage is there, we see many modern scholars recognize this interpretation and understanding, and we trace this back 2000 years. It is also true that the earliest hebrew Targum from the 2nd century is understood as saying the earth was laid waste and desolate.


Theologically now, we can turn this hypothesis into a theory since we have verified that these key passages can indeed be understood in this way... and since theologically we are on good ground, lets see how we can test this theory physically.

The theological testing is verified from Genesis to revelation.

Now lets take this theory and put it side by side with out geological and fossil records...

So Here is what we will test against the bible...


Past extinction event healing patterns

1) The earth is laid waste
2) This earth has certainly seen extinction events which filled the atmosphere with water, debris, earth, and ash, causing photosynthesis to cease, starving the plant eaters and then starving the meat eaters.
3) Inevitably the atmosphere ALWAYS began to clear.
4) Inevitably life began to flourish in the seas.
5) Inevitably grasses and herbs began to flourish.
6) Inevitably the atmosphere clears to the point that the heavenS can be seen clearly.

Here I will begin to lay out the evidences for my theory.

Simply as a reminder, My theory is that Genesis 1, begins in

verse 2 to relay to us a brief history of an extinction event

and the subsequent clearing of the atmosphere and healing of

the earth.



Testing:

Test 1: If this holds any water though then the first thing we should be able to verify VERY quickly whether or not this earth has ever undergone an extinction event.

Result: I believe that there is nearly 100 percent agreement

within the scientific community, that this earth has endured

extinction events. My theory regarding Genesis 1 holds up

under this point.


Test 2: This described event indicates that the atmosphere was

cluttered and darkened to the point no light could filter

through. A large abundance of Water also was mixed in with

the description of contents within the atmosphere.

Result: It is quite evident for instance because of the crator

in Yucatan, that this earth has seen MULTIPLE extinction events and that some of these events would have erupted large amounts of water into the atmosphere, along with earth and ash and etc, and that this indeed went on to possibly be the cause for the extinction of the dinosaur. There certainly is no

disagreement within the scientific community that this earth

has seen disaster that darkened the skies, killed off all

plant life, starving out the plant eaters, and then starving

out the predators. Genesis 1 in no way conflicts with this

and even poetically actually states that this IS how it

happened.


Test 3: If my theory is correct then we should also begin to be able to find reference to it in the fossil record. Our fossil records indicate that generally speaking, when we have seen such mass extinction events, the first step in the healing process, where an extinction event has darkened the atmosphere, is the eventual clearing of the atmosphere.

Result: The poetic rendering of "let there be light", can certainly be an indicator of a clearing atmosphere after an asteroid impact, volcanic activity etc. This is referred to as the first AGE or STAGE or DAY in Genesis 1... all 3 words would be properly applicable in Hebrew understanding.



Test 4: Now regarding the atmosphere placed between the waters we see in the 2nd day, we can see that waters settled below and around the atmosphere. This is nothing new at all. We see example of this many times. A recent giant planet was recently found with strange plasma like water hanging into the lower levels of the atmosphere, while another dwarf planet was recently found with an enveloping water vapor layer.

Result: Again we verify that this indeed is not an extremely unusual occurrence, it is not at all outlandish, and we do observe in nature, this event taking place around us elsewhere.


Test 5: Now we should be able to expect basic plant life, both marine and on land, to begin to flourish, now that the earth begins to warm and a bit of life begins to allow photosynthesis to give us back out paradise.

Result: This is the exact order given to us in the passages of scripture. Genesis 1 is calling correctly, the order we see in stone.


Now on the 4th day or age, many people look at this and think it means the sun and moon were created on the 4th day. We theorize that since we saw PLURAL heavenS created before this first age, and that we saw LIGHT during the 2nd age, this is simply a poor translation of the literal hebrew poetry.. He is causing them to appear as opposed to actually creating them at this point. They were created with the "heavens". No one can deny the poetic nature of Genesis, so this possibility must certainly properly be entertained.


Test 6: Most amazingly during the 5th age we see EVOLUTION. We see that after this extinction event, and after the light could once again begin to filter through, life begins to spring forth from the oceans. Genesis 1 states that life began evolving in the seas first and that even the birds descend from the sea:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

...IF this is true, then we should be able to note evolution in nature and in the fossil record. <nudge nudge>


SO... how many times has this alone been tested? How many times have fossil finds shown us that life began in the water and evolved from there? How many? Sure there are a lot of connections that CANNOT be made or have not been made YET, but concensus is that life began in the seas and evolved... I can produce the consensus of NEARLY EVERY major scientist in this area. This is one of the best tested theories in science.

I can literally produce hundreds of fossil finds that verify it.


The only problem IS, they arrived to this consensus 3500 years after Genesis 1 stated it as a very bold fact.


I challenge you to show me ANY other ancient book verifying evolution. In my view this puts Genesis 1 FAR AHEAD of its time. THIS ALONE should cause us to give pause to examine the actual events, the actual facts presented in this literature.



So far then in this debate

1) Divine takes the big bang off the table declaring it is not even a theory and gives this debate up by default though not really realizing it.

2) There are no tests here to verify any predictions.

3) He could not provide any predictions.

4) He doesn't know any of the adjusted parameters done in any possible testing.



1) I have shown the OEC theory of a gap in genesis 1 to genesis 2 goes back over 2000 years

2) I have shown prominent men in the church have believed this from today on back 2000 years

3) I have shown the Hebrew language and poetic nature allows for this reading.

4) I have shown it to be unique and ALONE declaring evolution 3500 years before darwin.

5) Thus far it holds up under scrutiny when we look at all the fossil and geological records.



Now of course there is much more to lay out and MANY more tests, but there we have a good start.

Maybe my good opponent can make good time of his 2nd post and actually show us WHAT has ever been tested in regard to the BB.

DIVINE... more direct questioning...

1) Can you produce any ancient literature that verifies evolution or even refers to it?

2) Also, can you tell me genetically what makes man so much different than all the other primates? How many chromosomes and how many base pairs do we find in ALL primates?

3) when do you propose relativity became first existed?


add these 2 to the 4 you missed earlier and remember you AGREED to address direct questions. Dont come here expecting a cakewalk... expect to work for something, and give these people something to read.


.
"I never said it would be easy Neo, I just said it would be the truth."
Morpheous

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #4

Post by Divine Insight »

Wolfbitn wrote: I find it ironic that Divine says I didnt state what My theory concerns... It seemed very apparent to me that everyone was informed that my theory is that Genesis 1 described an extinction event and the subsequent healing of the planet. Did I not state this, or did he somehow miss it?
Yes, I read your opinionated theological speculation. I thought you said that you had an actual theory that you wanted to compare with with Big Bang Theory?

Where is your theory? By your own Rule #1 you must present your peer-reviewed theory.

Until you do that we have nothing to debate. I thought you said that you had a scientific theory of Genesis 1 that you wanted to compare with other scientific theories?

Apparently you didn't come to this debate prepared.

I don't see where there is anything to debate here? :-k

All scientific theories must be peer-reviewed by the scientific community and this also requires that they are at least published.

So I ask you one more time to submit your scientific theory of Genesis 1 or conceded defeat already.
Wolfbitn wrote: From post 1 of this debate:
My THEORY regarding Genesis 1 is this:

To put this in the simplest form, after Genesis 1:1, We have before us, from verse 2 and to the end of the chapter, an "Extinction Event", and then the subsequent healing of the earth and the renewal of life.

Today, many many many people in the OEC movement believe this very thing. This belief can be easily traced back over 2000 years, and we believe it is the original intent in the earliest manuscripts.
Sorry if you somehow didnt read that Divine
I read that along with all the other opinionated theological speculations that you wrote in your opening post. Those opinionated theological speculations do not constitute a scientific theory.

I seriously doubt that they even constitute valid theology. Can you even point to a published form of your theological speculations that has been peer-reviewed by theologians? :-k

If not, then you came into this debate violating your own Rule #1 that your sources are to be peer-reviewed.

So I'm at a lost for words at this point.

You wasted my time here.

You don't even have a valid theory to debate.

If you wanted to debate opinionated theological specualtions you should have said so. I'll be glad to debate you on that. If you like you can concede defeat here and we'll start a new thread to debate your opinionated theological speculations.

I'll be willing to debate that with you.

In the meantime you've already lost this debate and we're only a few posts into it.
Wolfbitn wrote: He admits he doesnt have an actual theory to lay on the table, so I am therefore the only man in this debate with an actual theory on the table... Namely theorizing that Genesis 1 is describing an actual extinction event.
Excuse me? I never claimed to even have a theory. You are the one who claimed to have a theory and all you have offered thus far is nothing more than opinionated theological specualtions.

If that was what you wanted to debate you should have said so instead of claiming to have a theory that merits being compared with scientific theories.
Wolfbitn wrote: Notice he states that the big bang theory cant even start at the event... NOTE TOO that he would not concede the first point, that it is indeed an UNFINISHED hypothesis. Yet he conceded that it is actually not even a theory... Thank you Divine. Point match game.
I've explained in depth in my second post the difference between the Big Bang Event and Big Bang Theory. Clearly you either didn't read it or you were incapable of comprehending it because you are grossly misrepresenting my position on things right here.

In fact isn't that supposed to be against your rules? :-k
Wolfbitn wrote: The Rules:
1) Peer-reviewed sources only.
2) Theological sources old and new can be used, recognizing that just as in science, theologians disagree.
3) No empty, unsupported claims may be made; back up all positive statements with evidence.
4) Direct questions MUST be answered in an intelligent way, with supporting evidence, or a simple "I dont know" will work.
5) Misrepresenting another debater is a disqualifying factor. Ask questions if you are unsure about what they are saying
Yep there it is wolfbitn Rule #5 Misrepresenting another debater is a disqualifying factor.

I made crystal clear in my previous post the difference between the Big Bang Event and Big Bang Theory, and now you are attempting to misrepresent that in a major way here.

So now you are in stark violation of your own Rule #1 and Rule #5

Plus you haven't even presented a valid theory of Genesis 1 to even debate. Instead all you have offered thus far is opinionated theological speculations. And even that has not been published or peer-reviewed by theologians.

You are already so disqualified from this debate by your own rules.

What do we do now? Are you going to own up to defeat? Or are you going to carry this pretentious denial to the bitter end of the agreed upon post count? :-k

Should I request that moderator read this thread thus far and offer a moderated opinion on who's breaking all the rules of our agreed upon debate so far? :-k

You did not ask me to debate opinionated theological speculations Wolfbitn.

You claimed to have a scientific theory of Genesis one that trumps Big Bang Theory.

I have not seen where you have produced any such scientific theory.

So I don't see where there is anything here to debate. As far as I can see Wolfbitn you have been fraudulent in your claim to have a scientific theory of Genesis 1. And you have also already dishonestly misrepresented my position by claiming that I have agreed that Big Bang Theory is not a Theory.

I'm just at a loss for words right now Wolfbitn. I seriously thought you could do better than this with all the yelling and screaming you did to get someone to debate with you Head-to-Head.

~~~~~~

To the Observers and Public Audience

My sincerest apologies to everyone. I had no clue that Wolfbitn was so unprepared to debate this topic of his own making.

I have printed out his previous post and I have it laying on the table here next to me. It is a total of 8 pages long. Most of it contains false accusations made toward me along with gross misrepresentations of what I had already established in my previous post, and many pages of totally opinionated theological speculation that has clearly never been formally published or peer-reviewed.

Wolfbitn is no doubt going to try to use his Rule #4 to proclaim that I must address all his false accusations, misrepresentations, and opinionated theological speculations lest I would be in violation of his Rule #4.

But I appeal to you that his tactics have already been highly dishonest and fraudulent, and he has already broken his own Rule #5 by misrepresenting my stance on Big Bang Theory.

So there is no way that I am going to bore everyone with a long-winded post attempting to address his 8 pages of dishonest accusations, misrepresentations of what I have already said, and his long-winded opinionated theological speculations that do not constitute any type of official "theory" either in science or theology.

I'm just totally at a loss for words.

~~~~~~


==============================

To the Moderators:

I would sincerely like to request that if it is possible a moderator step in and verify that I am correct. Wolfbitn has indeed quite dishonestly misrepresented my position on Big Bang Theory when he claimed the following: Thus by his very own Rule #5 he should be disqualified.

Wolfbitn wrote: Notice he states that the big bang theory cant even start at the event... NOTE TOO that he would not concede the first point, that it is indeed an UNFINISHED hypothesis. Yet he conceded that it is actually not even a theory... Thank you Divine. Point match game.
That is a totally dishonest misrepresentation of what I had actually stated.

Just for clarity I'll repost below what I had actually said in my previous post on this particular subject matter:
From my previous post:

The Big Bang Revisited:

The Big Bang as an actual event:

It is certainly possible to speak of the "Big Bang Event" in an effort to try to describe the very moment that our universe actually began. Currently there does not exist any theory concerning the actual Big Bang Event. There are speculations concerning what might have given rise to such an event. My favorite speculation is the idea that it may have begun as a quantum fluctuation. This speculation can actually be supported by the mathematics of the theory of Quantum Mechanics but it is not possible to show in detail that this was necessarily the cause of the Big Bang Event or precisely how it may have unfolded in the extreme early stages.

There are many other speculations concerning what might have caused the Big Bang Event, these range from "branes" colliding in M-theory, to singularities giving rise to the universe through Loop Quantum Gravity, to even other ideas.

The Big Bang Event is NOT a theory. It's just a name given to an event that we believe must have occurred because of Big Bang Theory (see next topic)

The Big Bang Theory:

The Big Bang Theory doesn't start with the Big Bang Event. On the contrary, the Big Bang Theory is the theory that has predicted that there must have been a Big Bang Event at one time. The Big Bang Theory actually began with the observations of an astronomer named Edwin Hubble who recognized and measured that our universe is currently expanding.

From this observation it was quickly realized that the universe must have been smaller in the past and that things must have been closer together in the past. Further observations confirmed that this is indeed the truth of reality. When we look out into the universe we are also looking back in time and the predictions of Hubble's "Big Bang Theory" were confirmed precisely. The universe was indeed smaller and galaxies were closer together in the past.

The ultimate conclusion of the Big Bang Theory is that there must have been a Big Bang Event at some point in the past. Further observations and data was collected and this was also found to be the truth of reality.

So the Big Bang Theory has been confirmed to be true up to and very close to the actual Big Bang Event. But of course, it hasn't been confirmed all the way to a singularity, or quantum fluctuation erupting. So the conclusion of the Big Bang Theory has not yet been confirmed. It may not have actually been a singularity. There could be some other explanation. But that clearly would not make the Big Bang Theory wrong anyway. The Big Bang Theory is not dependent upon there having been a Big Bang Event in the sense of the universe beginning from an absolute singularity.

So Wolfbitn's idea that Big Bang Theory is invalid if a Big Bang Event cannot be shown to have actually occurred is totally wrong anyway. The Big Bang Theory is not dependent upon an actual Big Bang Event having started from a singularity.

That is actually a layman's misunderstanding of Big Bang Theory and Wolfbitn is making this layman mistake.

Big Bang Cosmology:

Big Bang Cosmology is the study of neculosynthesis during the early stages of the development of the universe. Like Big Bang Theory, Big Bang Cosmology also does not depend upon there having actually been a Big Bang Event in terms of the universe having supposedly starting from a singularity.

In Summary of Big Bang:

Neither Big Bang Theory, nor Big Bang Cosmology are dependent upon being able to understand, describe, or prove that there was an actual Big Bang Event that began from a singularity.

So Wolfbitn is making a grave layman's mistake to even think that way, yet this is his main objection to the Big Bang Theory.
========================================

Post Summary

I just don't know where to go from here.

Wolfbitn clearly does not even have a scientific theory of Genesis 1 to debate.
In fact, he doesn't even have peer-reviewed theological speculations.
Apparently all he has is some personal subjective opinionated speculation.

If he wanted to debate that he should have just said so at the onset instead of misrepresenting his personal subjective opinionated speculations claiming that they are some sort of theory worthy of comparing with peer-reviewed and well-tested scientific theories.

I mean, I would be more than willing to discuss, or even debate, the merit of his personal opinionated theological opinions on their own merit.

I see no reason to bring Big Bang Theory or Relativity into the picture. First he needs to establish that he even has a meaningful opinionated theological speculation.

He has nothing to compare with Big Bang Theory.

There's just nothing here to debate. He misrepresented himself from the get go. And we have 32 more posts to go. What is this going to become? Thirty two posts of continued denial and misrepresentation on the part of Wolfbitn?

Like I say, if he wants to concede that he doesn't have a scientific theory of Genesis 1, I would be more than happy to discuss or debate his theological speculations. But I don't even see the need to bring Big Bang theory into those discussions.

In fact, even if he had a valid theory of Genesis 1 he still hasn't yet established why we are even talking about Big Bang Theory?

Shouldn't he need to demonstrate how Big Bang Theory and his imagined speculations about Genesis clash on some particular point first? Then we could possibly address that issue.

In any case, as far as I'm concerned, Wolfbitn has already lost this debate by default on at least two counts:

1. He has no actual theory of Genesis to debate. All he has is personal speculations
2. He has already violated his own Rule against misrepresenting his opponent. And his own rule specially requires that he be disqualified on that point.

==================================
[mrow]Post Counter[mcol]Allotted[mcol]Current [row]Wolfbit'n Opening[col]1[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]D. I. Opening[col]1[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]Wolfbit'n Debate[col]15[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]D. I. Debate[col]15[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]Wolfbit'n Closing[col]2[col] [row]D. I. Closing[col]2[col]
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #5

Post by McCulloch »

Wolfbitn wrote:I find it ironic that Divine says I didnt state what My theory concerns... It seemed very apparent to me that everyone was informed that my theory is that Genesis 1 described an extinction event and the subsequent healing of the planet. Did I not state this, or did he somehow miss it?

O... well it looks like I did state my theory... and yes in the first post... and yes again when we were making arrangements to have this debate in more than 2 threads lol.
Divine Insight wrote: I do not see where this constitutes a "scientific theory" of Genesis 1. There is nothing scientific about opinionated theological speculations about ancient fables.
Moderator Comment
Divine Insight did not state that Wolfbitn neglected to outline his ideas. The challenge was to show that these ideas are, in fact, qualified to be called a theory. Wolfbitn is obligated by the rules of this debate to show that his interpretation of Genesis 1 is fits the generally accepted meaning of the word theory.

Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

Wolfbitn
Banned
Banned
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:26 pm

Post #6

Post by Wolfbitn »

It appears that my adversary chose to debate thinking he would not have to debate. The rules were clear, and he refuses to answer direct questions, So, I will be personally contacting moderators today, asking that they force an answer, or concessions.

I publicly ask for this decision from the moderators here and now.

The fact is that this theory is in fact being tested in front of EVERYONE despite Divines protest and lack of addressing the issues, and He is not answering a SINGLE direct question.

If the Moderator is confusing "genesis 1 is a theory" with "my theory regarding Genesis 1", I have already made it very clear that I do not regard Genesis 1 to be a theory, I am THEORIZING that Genesis 1 is referring to an extinction event, and I have also OBVIOUSLY set it's statements side by side with the fossil evidence... THIS is a testable theory simply because it is ALREADY being tested AND WITHSTANDS the test.


I refer the moderator and all reading to the very first post describing this debate...
From the first post:
My THEORY regarding Genesis 1 is this:


To put this in the simplest form, after Genesis 1:1, We have before us, from verse 2 and to the end of the chapter, an "Extinction Event", and then the subsequent healing of the earth and the renewal of life.
So, a theory being testable hypothesis, the testing has already begun, comparing these statements first theologically to make sure that these passages may indeed be taken this way. Testing shows yes indeed and the history of this line of thinking goes back at least 2000 years.

So it passes thus far the theological testing.

Next we began testing these claims against geological and fossil records and ALL of these too were verified thus far.. So though Genesis 1 is literature and not a theory, one may hypothesize that it regards an extinction event and test the veracity of the hypothesis against geological and fossil records. The verification from these fossil and geological records certainly then qualify this hypothesis as a valid theory thus far.


Now let us see a little equity and have the Moderator directly address Divine. I would like a judgment causing Divine Insight to answer the direct questions he has already agreed to address when we sat this debate up. the fact he knows what the rles are cannot be disputed.





Rule 4 of this debate, from the opening post, and this was agreed to by both parties at the beginning before this thread even began:
4) Direct questions MUST be answered in an intelligent way, with supporting evidence, or a simple "I dont know" will work.
...and these are the direct questions asked and ignored thus far:

From post 1:
And at this point I will invoke rule 4, and bring it into play. Divine, I do not want a blanket statement that BB has been tested, I am challenging you to prove to what extent it has been tested... I am asking you Directly to provide the following:


1) I want the mathematical equation for the big bang, which leads us back to the moment of the event. If this cannot be provided I would like Divine's concession that this finished equation simply does not exist. Does such a thing exist? According to all of our more credible scientists, like Guth and Hawking, no this formula does not exist.


2) My esteemed adversary here will claim that a number of predictions have been tested that verify the BB. I want my opponent to provide a list of all of the predictions that have been made in regards to the BBT. The more prediction you can provide the better your argument. Without these predictions you are left with very little, because predictions have been the ONLY tests performed in regards to the BB. Peer reviewed sources please. How many predictions can you dig up? How many of them were even credible?


3) I expect my opponent to provide a list of tests that have actually been performed in an attempt to verify these predictions that were made regarding the BB. I would like with this a conclusion giving the percentage of resemblance between the predicted model and the actual end results of these tests. In other words, the results were within what percentage point of the predicted model? Do you have any that rise to a 10 percent match even after adjusting the parameters?


4) I challenge my opponent to list the parameters of these tests which were adjustable, and tell us after the adjustments were made, did the adjusted parameters themselves resemble ANY current observations. Were the original parameters representative of what was observed or the adjusted?

From post 2
DIVINE... more direct questioning...

1) Can you produce any ancient literature that verifies evolution or even refers to it?

2) Also, can you tell me genetically what makes man so much different than all the other primates? How many chromosomes and how many base pairs do we find in ALL primates?

3) when do you propose relativity became first existed?

Otherwise, my only personal opinion to be expressed regarding this attempt by Divine to disallow Christianity scientific method, is that he is of course completely biased and non-objective. To imply we cannot theorize that Genesis 1 describes an extinction event, and that we cannot compare THE AMAZING "ahead of its time" fact of claimed events, with the fossil and geological testing for verification, is insane. If any moderator were to disallow Genesis 1 to be compared with the geological tables and fossil records to test this theory, well I will assume you have more scruples than this.

But if you agree with Divine that Christians are evidently backward ignorant buffoons simply because they believe in their God, and you further believe that they should be denied scientific method on a board supposedly allowing free debate, do what you will to end this debate.


If this is the bias Divine wishes to practice, and if he can produce no evidence for his side thus far, I'm afraid it will be a very one sided debate, with me being the only one producing evidence for either. It seems odd that he would attempt to debate an issue by attempting not to debate it lol. It seems even odder that he would agree to answer direct questioning, and then boldly state he is not going to address them when in the actual debate.


So let us go further.


I would like to take the time to once again point out a few glaring inconsistencies with the Big Bang.

1) Since it is an unfinished hypothesis mathematically, as Haven, who is studying for his phd has pointed out, after a century of trying to come to an answer and failing, it is obvious there are major issues with the BB.

2) Despite claims made by those who regard BB, that the BB has been so well tested, we see not a single test provided by Divine.

3) Despite the claim made by those who reg
gard BB that many predictions have been made and tested, Divine has not provided a single prediction.

4) What are "changing" or Adjustable parameters"?

5) Horizon problems... Jason Lisle (Lisle, Jason, Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang, Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003) states that even assuming the time scale of the BB, we have not had sufficient time for light to travel throughout the wideley separated areas of the universe.

6) The BB has to deal with gravity, density, and space time. It is completely unable to account for gravity.

7) The BB in no way explains how matter exists.

8) The BB in no way helps us to understand how consciousness comes from this process.

9) The law of Conservation of Angular Momentum indicated that everything should be spinning in the same direction... this however is not the case, and those who hold to the BB have no way to explain this.

10) We do not see even distributions of matter and energy.

11) Dr. Alan Guth, former professor at MIT attempted to solve the flatness and horizon problems associated with the BB, utilizing string theory. Since string was falsified however, these issues still remain.


Not even the noted Edwin Hubble believed that this universe is still expanding. He stated:
“..if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions.�
— Edwin Hubble, Observational Approach to Cosmology, Oxford 1937.

BB has a lot to explain, and Divine is quickly losing time and space to address these issues.



Lets now examine the evidence thus far tested regarding MY theory that Gen 1 is describing an extinction event.

1) Testing against geological and fossil records we see that indeed this world has undergone extinction events which clouded the atmosphere with debris to the point that it caused massive die offs. This test then thus far verifies the concept.

2) The bible STANDS ALONE in identifying Evolution 3500 years before Darwin. Not just amazing, but absolutely unique in its position on evolution. We cannot deny that the modern translations reveal that:

A) Animal life began in the seas
B) It then went on to evolve

This is a double verification when testing Genesis 1 side by side with our stone records.

3) The pattern shown in Genesis, of the order of events in the healing of the earth, matches that which we find in geological record. There is nothing falsifying the theory thus far whatsoever.




So theologically, and geologically, this theory, that Genesis 1 describes an extinction event, thus remains verified and unfalsified.



An interesting debate has arisen, speaking of the Genesis record stating that Birds evolved from fish. It is HIGHLY likely that this is referring to an eventual evolution and not directly from one fish to one bird, however consensus that birds are descended from Dinosaurs has been challenged in some very credible ways.


From Science Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085411.htm
Date:
October 10, 2005
Source:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Summary:

No good evidence exists that fossilized structures found in China and which some paleontologists claim are the earliest known rudimentary feathers were really feathers at all, a renowned ornithologist says. Instead, the fossilized patterns appear to be bits of decomposed skin and supporting tissues that just happen to resemble feathers to a modest degree.


Led by Dr. Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a team of scientists says that as a result of their new research and other studies, continuing, exaggerated controversies over "feathered dinosaurs" make no sense.

"We all agree that birds and dinosaurs had some reptilian ancestors in common," said Feduccia, professor of biology in UNC’s College of Arts and Sciences. "But to say dinosaurs were the ancestors of the modern birds we see flying around outside today because we would like them to be is a big mistake.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 072053.htm
Scientist Says Ostrich Study Confirms Bird "Hands" Unlike Those Of Dinosaurs
Date:
August 15, 2002
Source:
University Of North Carolina At Chapel Hill
Summary:
Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have opened a series of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what they believe is proof that birds could not have descended from dinosaurs. They also discovered the first concrete evidence of a thumb in birds.

So though scientists still try to figure out the family tree, They are in complete agreement with the statement within Genesis that Birds evolved from the seas.

Lets address the significance of this issue. For over a century, the church has fought tooth and nail against darwinism simply because they felt for some reason that this would infringe upon the idea of a "creator God". The fact that christians today can read genesis chapter 1 and completely read past evolution, is only testimony to their great lack of any understanding at all within Genesis.

I submit that NONE of the ancient forms of literature, and none of the great theological works, from the earliest to the times of Christ, to the days of Darwin, have addressed the following passage:
Gen 1:20
¶
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Here we see fish, marine mammals AND EVEN BIRDS eventually evolved during the 5th age, AND we see their ancestry begins in the sea.


I challenge AGAIN, my adversary to produce ANY OTHER ancient document so far ahead of its time 3500 years before Darwin. Not only does this fit the facts we find written in stone, IT IS THE ONLY ancient document doing so, IN SPITE of the ridiculous beliefs that were commonly held in it's day. Genesis 1 declared evolution while most of the church DENIED evolution, though it was written right there in the pages of Genesis 1.


This certainly gives us cause to put even more faith that the events described in Genesis 1 refers to an extinction event and then the earth's subsequent healing.


Certainly though we do have evidence that a LARGE NUMBER of well educated Christians, recognize evolution at work in Genesis chapter 1.

http://www.hpcisp.com/~kls/controversy2.html
Most of us were taught as children that when God created the earth he simply spoke the word "tree" and there was a fully formed tree, or "grass" and there was grass, which would shortly need mowing. Nearly half the adults in the United States believe this is true. Is this what Scripture says?

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind , whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind : and God saw that it was good.

If you throw out all the evidence for an old earth, Let the earth bring forth has no real significance when interpreting these verses. 24 hours is close enough to instant that it just doesn't matter. When you accept the evidence of cosmology, geology, paleontology and all the other 'ologies as basically true then this phrase is very interesting. God's command let the Earth bring forth plant life suggests a passage of time and indicates the earth is God's chosen instrument through which He will create. The implication is that God's creative act might appear perfectly natural to humans when examining it millions of years later in the fossil record. 'Suggests' and 'might' are not conclusive but this does harmonize Scripture with the fossil record without forcing an awkward interpretation of the passage.

Does this mean random evolution from a common ancestor is God's chosen method of creation? My understanding of Scripture sees this as too big a jump to make. Scripture is clear it was God who planned, ordered, and formed all of creation, and the phrase after his kind is a pretty direct statement of limits. But what does it mean? I have always been told it means after a particular species . Again what does Scripture really say? Note in particular that grass, herb yielding seed produces after his kind , and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind . Scripture does not say - Oak tree you will produce only exact duplicates of yourself until the end of time. But isn't this the way we are taught to believe? What I am saying is that there appears to be room for variation of plant life in Scripture by what would appear to be natural selection with limits. Not random chance, but God's hand guiding the creation of plant life on Earth.

Do not think that I am giving evolution free reign here. I am not. Please stay with me until the end of this article. The question remains to be asked, did all plant life originate from a few plant cells that God developed into individual forms of grass, herb, and tree or were many types of fully formed plants created initially? We cannot be certain since Scripture is silent on this issue, but the first view seems to be more consistent with the fossil record. Either way this should not be of great concern to us. The fossil record is very clear; plants have changed tremendously through time. No matter what mechanism has been used by the earth to bring forth plant life it is God's command that caused it to happen.

The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. Prov 16:33 NIV

The Creation of Dinosaurs and Birds

If God allowed room for his creation to change with limitations in the plant world is it possible He did the same in other areas? Again let's examine the Scriptures.

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind , and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The same pattern emerges here as in the earlier passages. This time it is the waters that bring forth but it is God that created the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth . Another pattern is repeated as well - notice God created... that... which the waters brought forth... after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind . Again limits have been set but specific species have not been mentioned, with the exception of great whales.

I stated in Understanding Genesis Chapter 1 that this is a mistranslation. Dinosaur fossils would not be discovered for 250 years after the translating of the King James Bible. If this is a correct understanding of God's word then this means that the creatures of the waters developed until on day God made some of them able to live on land. This is a proper understanding of current scientific theory and if correct is not a violation of Scripture.

It is interesting that the waters are mentioned as bringing forth the fowl that fly above the earth. This is a totally foreign idea to the traditional understanding of Biblical creation, yet that is what the Scripture says. It is also interesting that science has been unable to decide how to classify birds, how they originated and whether they were originally reptiles. The Bible says they were created after their kind. It is possible that the birds have no predecessor. Archaeopteryx may have been a flying reptile just as bats are flying mammals. This does not mean they are related to birds. Archaeopteryx may also have been legitimately one of the first birds, despite its reptile features. This still does not prove it had reptile ancestors. The possibility remains though that birds were descendants of reptiles through God's guiding hand on this fifth creation day. There is no conflict here except in our tradition and in our bias. God is in control. The Biblical account of creation is literal. Science agrees with the Bible again.

Doesn't what I am saying destroy God's authority and power? In no way, but it does destroy long held tradition. The Bible is literally true. It is the tradition that is in error. This tradition was not built on a denial of the truth but upon the amount of revelation given. It was a good belief based upon what was known. If rejection of the old tradition causes you to stumble or weakens your faith, seek the Lord's face for understanding. If you must, cling to the old tradition since you have to be convinced in your own mind. One thing that I ask, allow others their freedom in Christ to believe in this new way. I have never met anyone that has become a Christian because they heard the earth was 6,000 years old, but I have met many who have rejected the Bible and Jesus because of this young earth belief.

The Making of Mammals

We all know we must deal with man's origins shortly but first what does Scripture really say about mammals?

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind , and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind : and God saw that it was good.

Sounds a little familiar doesn't it. Let the earth bring forth... after his kind, God's chosen instrument through which He will create - with limits. What is created at this time needs some discussion. Specific species are not mentioned here, only broad categories. The Hebrew word for cattle is behemah and it means a large quadruped. This covers a broad range of mammals, but is best understood as meaning grazing animals. The Hebrew word for creeping things is remes and it means a rapidly moving animal. It can mean reptile but probably doesn't here. It probably refers to rabbits, squirrels and that type of mammal. beast of the earth is chay in Hebrew and refers to wild creatures.

Another interesting thing about these verses is that God made these creatures whereas the creatures mentioned previously were created . Why the word change? Is it possible this verse is not as simple as traditional interpretation has long held? The mammals may have been created from the earth directly or they may have been genetic alterations of previously existing land dwelling lifeforms that had been created during day five. The Hebrew word for created is bara and it means cut out or formed and is traditionally considered to mean out of nothing. Since we are told that the sea brought forth the creations of day five, the idea might better be understood as a lump of clay being used to form a piece of pottery. In this case the pottery is a living creature. Asah , the Hebrew word translated made means to bring forth. Carrying the pottery analogy further this might mean using the existing pottery (from day five) and reshaping it into something new (the mammals of day six). Understand that the potter is still necessary. God is the Creator and power responsible for the genetic alterations. God is in control.

Why should God make mammals in this way? Looking at this question from another angle we should just as easily ask why do we believe God must have done it in a certain way? We should never be so arrogant as to demand God follow our idea of what is the proper method to create a universe, or a mammal. We should never be so arrogant as to demand God follow our limited understanding and interpretation of Scripture.

Did God make all mammals from a few pair of creatures or did He make many different kinds of mammals initially? Again, Scripture is silent. We do not know. One idea may be more palatable to us than the other but it is folly to demand a preferred method is correct. Science is also uncertain on this point. Current theory is that mammals descended from Therapsida, a large order of reptiles (an order contains many species). This would indicate that several cold-blooded reptile creatures developed along parallel lines to become warm-blooded mammals. This seems to me to be highly unlikely by unguided random natural selection, but with God all things are possible.

Interestingly, the origins of mammals appears to be mentioned in day 5. In Gen 1:21we read " And God created ... every living creature that moveth . The Hebrew for creature here is different than creature mentioned in verse 20. The Hebrew word is Nephesh and it is often translated soul, not to be confused with spirit. Spirit refers to the eternal; soul in Scripture refers to the living mind and emotions. Unlike reptiles, mammals are capable of emotional expression.

The fossil record tells us that until 65 million years ago mammals were confined to rodent sized creatures scurrying about at the dinosaurs’ feet. When the dinosaurs became extinct the mammals quickly dominated the earth, exploding in numbers and variety. Isn't this what the Bible tells us that God did on the sixth day? Science and the Bible are once again in complete agreement
.


So, we see easily that the bible is indeed ahead of its time, unless Divine can provide any other ancient literature declaring evolution to be a fact. It is completely reliable in its statements regarding evolution, Its statements are in line when it comes to past extinction events, It is correct in stating that we will suffer further extinction events, and NOT A SINGLE point of this is falsified by Divine. Simply saying "hu-uh, no it doesn't", as Divine has done, is not only pointless debate, it is lazy debate. If he continues this I am happy to simply let him protest this entire debate and post no defenses or debate whatsoever.


So Mods, I am contacting a few of you personally, reaching out to enforce rule 4, or declare Divine disqualified for not answering direct questions.





I have sent this following request to 3 of the mods, one of whom has already posted on this thread:

"Hello, its good to finally be able to talk to you.
I have a bit of an issue with a head to head debater who went through several pages of running before he agreed to a debate... NOW he states a christian cannot "theorize" basically, and he is absolutely refusing to answer questions, when one of the rules state he MUST answer direct questions... Would you please stop by the thread: Genesis 1 Vs Big Bang, with Wolfbitn and Divine debating... Would you PLEASE enforce this rule and help us to have an honest debate.

Thank you."

.
"I never said it would be easy Neo, I just said it would be the truth."
Morpheous

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #7

Post by Divine Insight »

Wolfbitn wrote: If the Moderator is confusing "genesis 1 is a theory" with "my theory regarding Genesis 1", I have already made it very clear that I do not regard Genesis 1 to be a theory, I am THEORIZING that Genesis 1 is referring to an extinction event, and I have also OBVIOUSLY set it's statements side by side with the fossil evidence... THIS is a testable theory simply because it is ALREADY being tested AND WITHSTANDS the test.
So in other words, you confess that you do not have a scientific theory of Genesis 1, but instead you are merely "theorizing" in a very informal non-scientific layman sort of way using nothing more than opinionated theological speculations.

I have no problem with this. If you would have made this clear at the onset you would have saved us all a lot of trouble.

So apparently what you would like to "debate" is how your non-scientific layman speculations about biblical texts compare with something about the Big Bang Theory?

Is that correct? :-k

I would be more than happy to entertain such a comparison. But you will need to be more specific about precisely what it is that you wish to compare.

So far all you seem to have been doing is demanding that I debate the scientific validity of Big Bang theory. That is not what I agreed to debate. The Big Bang theory itself stands in the face of scientific peer review that I personally embrace and accept.

I'm not going to debate the validity of Big Bang Theory in general. That is not the topic of debate here.
Wolfbitn wrote: I refer the moderator and all reading to the very first post describing this debate...
From the first post:
My THEORY regarding Genesis 1 is this:


To put this in the simplest form, after Genesis 1:1, We have before us, from verse 2 and to the end of the chapter, an "Extinction Event", and then the subsequent healing of the earth and the renewal of life.
If this is your layman theological "theory" about Genesis 1, we can, and should, perhaps begin with this. Why have you been distracting the debate to be all about the Big Bang theory before you have even focused on your own theological speculations about Genesis 1?

We can't compare any of this with the Big Bang Theory until we see precisely what it is that you would like to compare.

If your intent is to compare your layman theological speculative theorizing with the well-established scientific Big Bang Theory in general, then I think you have already lost this debate a few posts back.
Wolfbitn wrote: So, a theory being testable hypothesis, the testing has already begun, comparing these statements first theologically to make sure that these passages may indeed be taken this way. Testing shows yes indeed and the history of this line of thinking goes back at least 2000 years.

So it passes thus far the theological testing.
I thought this was supposed to be debatable? :-k

Don't I get to offer arguments on whether or not I feel that this has passed "theological testing"?

What exactly is it that we are even "testing" here?

If you truly want to compare your theological speculative theorizing with the Big Bang Theory why don't we actually do that then?

Historically the Big Bang Theory began with Edwin Hubble's observation that the universe is expanding. From this a hypothesis was offered that the universe must have then been smaller and the galaxies were closer together in the past. Because of the fact that when we look out into the universe we are also looking back in time it was actually possible to confirm this hypothesis.

So now if we are going to compare your theological theorizing with Big Bang Theory, I suggest that you begin by stating what observations led you to your first hypothesis and how did you go about testing that first hypothesis?

It seems to me that this is a good place to begin.

So I offer to you an opportunity to explain the observations that led you to the construction of your first hypothesis. And to also offer how this hypothesis was then tested to demonstrate it's truth.

In your above quote you are talking about an "Extinction Event" and the subsequent healing and renewal of life. Was this the beginning hypothesis of your "theory"? If so then please elaborate on what led you to this hypothesis and how you went about testing it (as succinctly as possible please)

My Single Question to Wolfbitn

What was your first observation and hypothesis that led you to your theory and how did you go about testing that hypothesis?

Then perhaps we can move forward from there.
Wolfbitn wrote: Rule 4 of this debate, from the opening post, and this was agreed to by both parties at the beginning before this thread even began:
4) Direct questions MUST be answered in an intelligent way, with supporting evidence, or a simple "I dont know" will work.
This rule only makes sense within reason. The questions you ask must be relevant to the debate topic.

You can't just ramble on aimlessly demanding that I justify Big Bang Theory in its entire. Like I say that is NOT the topic of this debate.

You need to justify the questions you ask me within the context of the debate topic. otherwise I will refuse to answer them on the grounds that you have not yet shown their relevance to the debate at hand.

Try asking one relevant question at a time like I do with you.

~~~~~~~~~~

Post Summary

My Single Question to Wolfbitn

What was your first observation and hypothesis that led you to your theory and how did you go about testing that hypothesis?

Let's take a look at that FIRST.

One step at a time here. Present the hypothesis that first led up to your "theory" and how you went about testing it, or how you think we might go about testing it here for the very first time.

Don't swamp the debate with 8 pages of theory. Just describe the FIRST observation and Hypothesis that led you down the road to the development of your theory, and explain how you tested that SINGLE hypothesis. (just as I had described for Big Bang Theory above)

This is only one very simple question and it should be very easy for you to answer it. It's clearly extremely relevant to the topic at hand. How did your theory begin? And how did you test that hypothesis?

Thank you.


[mrow]Post Counter[mcol]Allotted[mcol]Current [row]Wolfbit'n Opening[col]1[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]D. I. Opening[col]1[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]Wolfbit'n Debate[col]15[col][color=red][b]2[/b][/color] [row]D. I. Debate[col]15[col][color=red][b]2[/b][/color] [row]Wolfbit'n Closing[col]2[col] [row]D. I. Closing[col]2[col]
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Wolfbitn
Banned
Banned
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:26 pm

Post #8

Post by Wolfbitn »

I will address Divine simply because I agreed to, but as you can see he does not take this seriously at all and is unable to mount any effective defenses OR attacks, except to say BB is not a theory and

Divine Insight wrote:
Wolfbitn wrote: If the Moderator is confusing "genesis 1 is a theory" with "my theory regarding Genesis 1", I have already made it very clear that I do not regard Genesis 1 to be a theory, I am THEORIZING that Genesis 1 is referring to an extinction event, and I have also OBVIOUSLY set it's statements side by side with the fossil evidence... THIS is a testable theory simply because it is ALREADY being tested AND WITHSTANDS the test.
So in other words, you confess that you do not have a scientific theory of Genesis 1, but instead you are merely "theorizing" in a very informal non-scientific layman sort of way using nothing more than opinionated theological speculations.

I have no problem with this. If you would have made this clear at the onset you would have saved us all a lot of trouble.

So apparently what you would like to "debate" is how your non-scientific layman speculations about biblical texts compare with something about the Big Bang Theory?

Is that correct? :-k
This appears to be a a childish display of disregard for rule number 5...
5) Misrepresenting another debater is a disqualifying factor. Ask questions if you are unsure about what they are saying.
But though this is a disqualifying factor I am going to keep you around and just continue to roll on over your non-debate.


I'm not going to debate the validity of Big Bang Theory in general. That is not the topic of debate here.
All I can give you here is a "LOL, very sad attempt"



Wolfbitn wrote: So, a theory being testable hypothesis, the testing has already begun, comparing these statements first theologically to make sure that these passages may indeed be taken this way. Testing shows yes indeed and the history of this line of thinking goes back at least 2000 years.

So it passes thus far the theological testing.
I thought this was supposed to be debatable? :-k

Don't I get to offer arguments on whether or not I feel that this has passed "theological testing"?

What exactly is it that we are even "testing" here?

It was debatable, you just cant debate it remember? :)
Its not my fault youre wasting time and posts :)


Historically the Big Bang Theory began with Edwin Hubble's observation that the universe is expanding. From this a hypothesis was offered that the universe must have then been smaller and the galaxies were closer together in the past. Because of the fact that when we look out into the universe we are also looking back in time it was actually possible to confirm this hypothesis.
You must have missed Hubble's quote in my last post :)

In your above quote you are talking about an "Extinction Event" and the subsequent healing and renewal of life. Was this the beginning hypothesis of your "theory"? If so then please elaborate on what led you to this hypothesis and how you went about testing it (as succinctly as possible please)

Thats exactly what my posts have been doing... every single one

Laying this evidence side by side with science. OEC, scientific education, theological education, laying the evidence of BOTH theories out here... you might want to catch up and actually attempt debunking something because the MODS ARE NOT SIDING WITH YOU TO SHUT THIS DOWN.... you might as well deal with this, and stand up to what you agreed to.

They KNOW they cannot disallow a Christian here to utilize scientific methodology to this theory that Genesis 1 is giving a brief history of an extinction event AND the subsequent healing of this world AND the restoration of life across the planet.

Wolfbitn wrote: Rule 4 of this debate, from the opening post, and this was agreed to by both parties at the beginning before this thread even began:
4) Direct questions MUST be answered in an intelligent way, with supporting evidence, or a simple "I dont know" will work.
This rule only makes sense within reason. The questions you ask must be relevant to the debate topic.

You can't just ramble on aimlessly demanding that I justify Big Bang Theory in its entire. Like I say that is NOT the topic of this debate.

yes lets see how we were rambling and what you believe to be so unreasonable lol..





Just describe the FIRST observation and Hypothesis that led you down the road to the development of your theory, and explain how you tested that SINGLE hypothesis. (just as I had described for Big Bang Theory above)

That in the 5th age, we see the eventual evolution of fish into birds. It tells us plainly LIFE began in the seas, and fish evolved into birds and mammals 3500 years before ANY OTHER DOCUMENT on earth... 3500 years before Darwin

Wolfbitn
Banned
Banned
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:26 pm

Post #9

Post by Wolfbitn »

I will address Divine simply because I agreed to, but as you can see he does not take this seriously at all and is unable to mount any effective defenses OR attacks, except to say BB is not a theory and

Divine Insight wrote:
Wolfbitn wrote: If the Moderator is confusing "genesis 1 is a theory" with "my theory regarding Genesis 1", I have already made it very clear that I do not regard Genesis 1 to be a theory, I am THEORIZING that Genesis 1 is referring to an extinction event, and I have also OBVIOUSLY set it's statements side by side with the fossil evidence... THIS is a testable theory simply because it is ALREADY being tested AND WITHSTANDS the test.
So in other words, you confess that you do not have a scientific theory of Genesis 1, but instead you are merely "theorizing" in a very informal non-scientific layman sort of way using nothing more than opinionated theological speculations.

I have no problem with this. If you would have made this clear at the onset you would have saved us all a lot of trouble.

So apparently what you would like to "debate" is how your non-scientific layman speculations about biblical texts compare with something about the Big Bang Theory?

Is that correct? :-k
This appears to be a a childish display of disregard for rule number 5...
5) Misrepresenting another debater is a disqualifying factor. Ask questions if you are unsure about what they are saying.
But though this is a disqualifying factor I am going to keep you around and just continue to roll on over your non-debate.

I'm not going to debate the validity of Big Bang Theory in general. That is not the topic of debate here.
All I can give you here is a "LOL, very sad attempt". Everyone who read the title of this thread is laughing.



Wolfbitn wrote: So, a theory being testable hypothesis, the testing has already begun, comparing these statements first theologically to make sure that these passages may indeed be taken this way. Testing shows yes indeed and the history of this line of thinking goes back at least 2000 years.

So it passes thus far the theological testing.
I thought this was supposed to be debatable? :-k

Don't I get to offer arguments on whether or not I feel that this has passed "theological testing"?

What exactly is it that we are even "testing" here?

It was debatable, you just cant debate it remember? :)
Its not my fault youre wasting both your time and your posts :)


Historically the Big Bang Theory began with Edwin Hubble's observation that the universe is expanding. From this a hypothesis was offered that the universe must have then been smaller and the galaxies were closer together in the past. Because of the fact that when we look out into the universe we are also looking back in time it was actually possible to confirm this hypothesis.
You must have missed Hubble's quote in my last post :)
“..if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions.�
— Edwin Hubble, Observational Approach to Cosmology, Oxford 1937

In your above quote you are talking about an "Extinction Event" and the subsequent healing and renewal of life. Was this the beginning hypothesis of your "theory"? If so then please elaborate on what led you to this hypothesis and how you went about testing it (as succinctly as possible please)

Thats exactly what my posts have been doing... every single one

Laying this evidence side by side with science. OEC, scientific education, theological education, laying the evidence of BOTH theories out here... you might want to catch up and actually attempt debunking something because the MODS ARE NOT SIDING WITH YOU TO SHUT THIS DOWN.... you might as well deal with this, and stand up to what you agreed to.

They know they cant just keep a Christian from utilizing scientific methodology just because he is applying it to Genesis and our scientific findings that are found written in stone. They CAN but then everyone would know it would be biased, so no, the mods WILL allow a christian to utilize scientific methodology to test this theory regarding this proposed extinction event found in Genesis 1

Wolfbitn wrote: Rule 4 of this debate, from the opening post, and this was agreed to by both parties at the beginning before this thread even began:
4) Direct questions MUST be answered in an intelligent way, with supporting evidence, or a simple "I dont know" will work.
This rule only makes sense within reason. The questions you ask must be relevant to the debate topic.

You can't just ramble on aimlessly demanding that I justify Big Bang Theory in its entire. Like I say that is NOT the topic of this debate.

yes lets see how we were rambling and what you believe to be so unreasonable lol..

From post 1:

Quote:
And at this point I will invoke rule 4, and bring it into play. Divine, I do not want a blanket statement that BB has been tested, I am challenging you to prove to what extent it has been tested... I am asking you Directly to provide the following:


1) I want the mathematical equation for the big bang, which leads us back to the moment of the event. If this cannot be provided I would like Divine's concession that this finished equation simply does not exist. Does such a thing exist? According to all of our more credible scientists, like Guth and Hawking, no this formula does not exist.


2) My esteemed adversary here will claim that a number of predictions have been tested that verify the BB. I want my opponent to provide a list of all of the predictions that have been made in regards to the BBT. The more prediction you can provide the better your argument. Without these predictions you are left with very little, because predictions have been the ONLY tests performed in regards to the BB. Peer reviewed sources please. How many predictions can you dig up? How many of them were even credible?


3) I expect my opponent to provide a list of tests that have actually been performed in an attempt to verify these predictions that were made regarding the BB. I would like with this a conclusion giving the percentage of resemblance between the predicted model and the actual end results of these tests. In other words, the results were within what percentage point of the predicted model? Do you have any that rise to a 10 percent match even after adjusting the parameters?


4) I challenge my opponent to list the parameters of these tests which were adjustable, and tell us after the adjustments were made, did the adjusted parameters themselves resemble ANY current observations. Were the original parameters representative of what was observed or the adjusted?



From post 2

Quote:
DIVINE... more direct questioning...

1) Can you produce any ancient literature that verifies evolution or even refers to it?

2) Also, can you tell me genetically what makes man so much different than all the other primates? How many chromosomes and how many base pairs do we find in ALL primates?

3) when do you propose relativity became first existed?



Answer them or show you cant, no sweat off my back.

Just describe the FIRST observation and Hypothesis that led you down the road to the development of your theory, and explain how you tested that SINGLE hypothesis. (just as I had described for Big Bang Theory above)

In the 5th age described in Genesis 1, we see the eventual evolution of fish into birds... AND EVERY living creature that moveth PLAINLY stated. NO misunderstanding.

We know historically this occurred after an extinction event, and Verse 2 can be understood to mean that the earth was laid waste and desolate.

Genesis 1 tells us plainly LIFE began in the seas, and fish evolved into birds and mammals 3500 years before ANY OTHER DOCUMENT on earth... 3500 years before Darwin

Test THAT against the fossil record and tell me what you get.
Genesis 1:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Now... lets move on.

We have before us the 2nd chromosome... a true wonder of nature.
Edited from a prior post)

Now comes man

Genesis 1 then goes on to tell us that the human being was special... he was to receive dominion over all the earth... how can this be done with no intelligence or just the intelligence we see in other primates?

Impossible... look at our culture today we are CERTAINLY above the animals and our dominion has been a destructive one because we are now sinful creatures in rebellion against our creator.

Look at the great feats of engineering we have pulled off... space flight.. computational advances that are staggering. Do we even know the limits to our potential... we arent just "above" the animals... we are WAY above the other animals around us.

The odd thing about us biologically however, are our chromosomes, Our chromosomes do indeed show us to be different, as primates have 48 in 24 pairs chromosomes and we have 46 in 23 pairs...

HOW did this happen?

The second chromosome some think, is FUSED with another, in a way NOT found to naturally occur anywhere else in the animal world. This chromosome also just happens to be one involving intelligence.


From http://science.kqed.org/quest/2008/05/1 ... or-design/
Human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very similar.
Note that human chromosome 2 is very similar to a
fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes.

For the last few weeks I have been corresponding with someone about intelligent design (ID). More specifically, we have been chatting about why humans have 46 chromosomes and most of the great apes have 48.
He goes on to say...
The ends of a chromosome have a defined sequence of DNA repeats called a telomere. The DNA at the fusion point looks very similar to a string of telomeres (as we would expect from a fusion) but it isn't perfect.


And from http://mitochondrialdnatesting.com/2-chromosome.html
2 Chromosome is the second largest human chromosome. It represents almost 8% of DNA in cells. People normally have two copies of this chromosome as all other non-sex chromosomes. Chromosome two spans about 243 million base pairs. Base Pairs are two molecules (nucleotides) on opposite DNA strands that are connected. Adenine (A) forms a base pair with thymine (T), as does guanine (G) with cytosine (C) in DNA. Base pairs is how DNA is measured. There are about 1,888 genes in this chromosome.

Recent studies suggest that genes on chromosome two may play an important role in human intelligence.

Also evolution presupposes that life evolves from the simplest to the most complex... YET HERE in the case of humanity we seem to have a miracle taking place on the chromosomal level where our chromosomes actually take a step TOWARD THE MORE SIMPLISTIC in number. How is it that biologically speaking we DEvolved to 46 chromosomes from 48 as the great apes have? How is it that in spite of DEvolving, we Evolved so tremendously.


Then science too has SO much inconsistency to deal with when considering a Godless point of view.

First neanderthal was in our supposed to be our ancestor... then one day someone points out that their brain cavity was actually LARGER than that of modern man, and then DNA evidence falsified it... so now they are no longer our ancestor.

The differences in cro magnon and the modern skull are MAJOR, and on the one hand the atheistic argument on evolution is that these changes take HUNDREDS of thousands of years yet we are supposed to believe these changes occurred in 10 thousand...

No... Genesis 1 shows man to be a unique creation, set apart to take dominion over the earth, and science itself shows we are specially equipped to do this. Again. Genesis 1 hits the nail on the head and now it can be shown genetically.



So we can see there's NOTHING inconsistent with Gen 1 when we look at the actual Hebrew, much to the dismay of the atheistic mindset im sure, with what we see in geology, and NOW with what we see biology speaking to us.

In summary now... I ask the moderators to rule that Divine answer the direct questions already asked and summarized near the end of my last post, and also listed above in THIS thread.

I would like to add that thus far the testing of every age with fossils and geology, gives us EXACTLY what mainstream science takes for grated as being true and verified by evidence.
Last edited by Wolfbitn on Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:27 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #10

Post by McCulloch »

Moderator Comment
Wolfbitn wrote: The Rules:
[...]
4) Direct questions MUST be answered in an intelligent way, with supporting evidence, or a simple "I dont know" will work.
Since there was no qualifier for this rule, that both debaters have agreed to, I must remind the debaters that they are obligated to address all directly asked questions. Refusing to address them is not an option. However, it is my opinion that addressing the relevance of the question is sufficient. For example, if the one debater asks what color are your shoelaces, the respondent can answer with, "It is not relevant to this debate."
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

Post Reply